Mr ELLIOTT(3.32 p.m.)—I have pleasure in speaking in support of the Wildlife Protection (Regulation of Exports and Imports) Amendment Bill 1991. In doing so, I wish to make a few remarks about the importance of this particular area of Commonwealth responsibility in the protection of our native fauna and to ensure that all of us, as Australian citizens who take a keen interest in the protection of our wildlife, can be satisfied that the legal regime which applies to the area of export and import control is contemporary with the value of much of the interest that occurs in this field. The main purpose of this Bill is to give effect to the Government's decision to provide a more flexible approach to the requirements for management programs which govern the export and import of wildlife. This is associated with more examination by the review committee of export controls.
The amendments give additional powers in this area and ensure that the range of penalties provided for those people who contravene the law are adequate to meet the range of value of some of the smuggling that has occurred. For instance, as the Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories (Mrs Kelly) noted in her second reading speech, there has been a lucrative market for smuggling of Australian wildlife. The question of importation and the potential disaster that can cause has been well documented not only from an environmental view but also in terms of the well-being of the wildlife concerned.
Recently a court decision which involved 10 gang-gang co*ckatoos, Major Mitchell co*ckatoos and four musk lorikeets established that that particular smuggling effort alone had an overseas value of something like $US325,000-which, I think most of us would say, should require that there are penalties commensurate with the sort of illegality that has occurred in those cases. However, on the other side of the coin, we have the example of many exotic species that have been imported into Australia and have moved from one part of Australia to another-such as rabbits, foxes, cats and prickly pear-which have changed parts of the Australian environment and had a significant detrimental effect on the Australian environment. We have to ensure that there are laws which effectively deal with the risk of an uncontrolled introduction of exotic species.
I note that in her second reading speech the Minister referred to the problem of the cane toad. I thought it would be appropriate to touch on this because only this week there was the example of a cane toad being filmed-not quite in my electorate but very close to it-in Homebush Bay in Sydney. With due deference to yourself, Madam Deputy Speaker, as a Queenslander, it would appear that this cane toad came from somewhere certainly north of Homebush Bay, and probably somewhere in Queensland. We from New South Wales have had a little trouble in recent times with the cane toads in the sporting arena!
Mr Dubois—Northerners.
Mr ELLIOTT—Yes, the northerners. The concern is that it is apparently all too easy for this cane toad to end up in Homebush Bay creating the sort of problems which it has done. I quote from an article in the Australian yesterday about this cane toad:
Bufo marinus was found sitting happily in a freshly dug hollow next to the children's playground in the Village Green area of Bicentennial Park at Sydney's Homebush Bay last week by a startled park ranger.
Mr Dubois—Not too far from the abattoir.
Mr ELLIOTT—Yes, not too far from the abattoir, as the member for St George rightly points out. The article continues:
The ranger was not so concerned because Bufo was decidedly ugly, with slimy, green warty skin-which he was. But he knew Bufo should not be near the playground-nor anywhere else in Sydney for that matter.
Bufo is better known as the ugly Queenslander, the cane toad. Not a State of Origin rugby league footballer but an ecological disaster.
The cane toad, first introduced to Queensland in 1935 in a short-sighted effort to control the cane beetle, has killed thousands of small domestic and native animals over the years and many scientists believe it now threatens some of the country's natural wonders, such as the Kakadu wilderness.
The cane toad has a voracious sexual appetite, producing more than 20,000 eggs in a breeding season. Another large problem is that it is poisonous.
The deputy director of the Australian Museum . . . said there was debate in the scientific community about how much damage was caused by the cane toad; but based on sheer numbers-in the tens of millions-there was unanimous agreement that it was a``major problem''.
As far as the House is concerned when we are debating this particular legislation, it is clear that the sort of proliferation of exotic species such as the cane toad is one of the reasons why we do have laws in this area.
It is also one of the reasons why we endeavour to ensure that there are penalties so that people who engage in the illegal import and export of species-I am not suggesting there are too many people importing the cane toad currently because clearly that damage was done in the 1930s, but there are other problems that have occurred through short-sightedness from time to time. That is why today we have such bodies as the Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service and the National Parks and Wildlife Service which take such a keen, enthusiastic and dedicated interest in these areas; as do organisations such as the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals.
Indeed, only last year as part of a parliamentary inquiry into the Customs Service, the honourable member for St George (Mr Dubois) and I had the opportunity to see first-hand much of the diligent work that is done in northern Australia by the quarantine service and the important role it plays, particularly in dealing with the tropical conditions and the concerns for the natural fauna which thrives in parts of those areas. For that sort of reason, it is important that we do say that we want to have effective legality in this area.
We want to ensure that the laws we establish are sustainable compared with the value of much of the smuggling of the species that does occur. One constantly hears examples of smuggling occurring that generate hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of value to the smugglers. But until the introduction of this particular legislation the penalties really have not matched that at all. The Bill therefore proposes that the maximum custodial penalty under the Wildlife Protection (Regulation of Exports and Imports) Act 1982 should be raised from five to 10 years and that the option of imposing both a monetary and custodial penalty should be available. That is again a demonstration of the Government's commitment in this area.
The exercise of controls on Australian and international wildlife requires, in addition to a commitment to effective law enforcement, an efficient and effective administrative control of legitimate trade in wildlife and wildlife products. The Wildlife Protection Act sets out the circ*mstances under which the transactions for scientific research and zoological display may occur and defines the circ*mstances in which the private and commercial transactions may be permitted.
Clearly, there are cases where it is possible to ensure that within the legal framework we have some export and import. The law has been established, and the enforcement of the law in this area is so difficult that it is really important to try to maintain a regime that all in the community can feel will be sustained and, if matters do get to the stage of prosecution, people will receive a punishment that fits the crime. That is clearly what this legislation is designed to achieve-to improve the management program, to ensure that the definitions of the specimens that will be considered by the particular program are precise and, at the same time, to take account of current trends and markets in the illegal smuggling operations that have proliferated in some areas.
It will give all workers in this field-most of whom show enormous dedication and commitment to the provision of our quarantine services, our wildlife and our national parks-the confidence that, if they see a matter through to the stage of prosecution, appropriate measures will be taken; and that there is a sufficient penalty provision in the law so that people do not get away unduly lightly for the crimes they may have committed. The Bill has a very positive and demonstrative effect on the community at large, which has a great deal of interest in our native fauna, to ensure that there is a proper legal framework that current trends and conditions provide for.
All of these issues give rise to a greater community concern about the protection of wildlife species and the need to ensure that the natural environment is one that we take a closer interest in. Yesterday I read some articles about the great tragedy caused by driftnet fishing. There was a time-and this is related to this Bill-when people probably did not pay too much regard to the devastation that driftnet fishing caused to much of the world.
A report released in Washington a couple of days ago indicates that driftnet fishing in the North Pacific is killing more than 500,000 seabirds each year, as well as tens of thousands of dolphins, seals and porpoises. For most of us that would be a great tragedy, apart from anything else. It would be quite repugnant if the world community were not able to develop proper mechanisms to ensure that the very unsatisfactory aspects of driftnet fishing were stopped.
We have made it clear that we believe that driftnet fishing should be banned. To get the world community to take a lead in this regard is difficult. That is why, when we come to legislation such as this, it is important for Australia not only to establish the regime of enforcement that we expect of Australians in dealing with the wildlife protection, but also to give a lead to the world community in terms of our commitment not only to wildlife importation and exportation, but also to the tragedy and devastation caused by driftnet fishing, and other environmental areas such as the protection of the Antarctic.
For these reasons, I think that measures in this Bill will be important in providing leadership on environmental issues that, as a global community, we should take seriously. It is for those reasons that I am pleased to see that initiatives have been taken in this regard. With regard to the commitment to global biological diversity, we have shown our commitment to ensure that proper action is taken in relation to the depletion of the ozone layer.
There are other measures in this area of public policy on the environment where this Government is taking a lead. Our commitment to wildlife protection as proposed in this Bill is one that the whole community should see as being a very positive and tangible step when they see the sorts of things which they find repugnant on their television screens, and are concerned at finding our cane toads turning up in Homebush Bay Park in Sydney. There will be mechanisms, through the legal framework, quarantine and other parks and wildlife services, which will ensure that Australians can be proud of the treatment and the measures that this Government provides for the protection of Australia's magnificent natural fauna.
